A thought about biblical "wine" being grape juice

  • Thread starter Thread starter VociMike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

VociMike

Guest
One of the more preposterous claims of American Fundamentalism (and a good portion of Evangelicalism) is that the “wine” spoken of in the bible was really grape juice. I wonder how many people have stopped investigating Christianity largely because of that one claim?

Anyway, my thought was that if anybody knew what the Jews in the first century were drinking, it would be the Jews. And furthermore, if the biblical “wine” was really grape juice, the Jews would not have missed the opportunity to correct the Christian world over the past 2000 years when the latter claimed that the “wine” was wine. But I am unaware that the Jewish world has ever corrected the Christian world on the age-old claim that the “wine” of the New Testament was actually wine.

So I’m wondering why the Jews haven’t sided with the recent notion that the “wine” of the bible was actually grape juice. And furthermore, why isn’t there an ancient tradition in Judaism of drinking grape juice and not wine?

Actually, I think I know the answer. 🙂
 
Jews haven’t sided with evangelicals because evangelicals who believe this (which is probably far fewer than you think) are quite clearly wrong. Anybody with a modicum of common sense knows that grape juice doesn’t cause “wineskins” to burst unless it is fermenting. The comments at the wedding in Cana also make no sense if it is only grape juice. You bring out good “wine” first to get your guests drunk, then when they’re drunk you give them the cheap stuff. Quite clearly, what they were drinking was alcohol.

I haven’t posted here in quite some time, but I can see that the Catholic sweeping generalizations about evanglicals hasn’t lessened.
 
ckempston said:
Jews haven’t sided with evangelicals because evangelicals who believe this (which is probably far fewer than you think) are quite clearly wrong. Anybody with a modicum of common sense knows that grape juice doesn’t cause “wineskins” to burst unless it is fermenting. The comments at the wedding in Cana also make no sense if it is only grape juice. You bring out good “wine” first to get your guests drunk, then when they’re drunk you give them the cheap stuff. Quite clearly, what they were drinking was alcohol.

I haven’t posted here in quite some time, but I can see that the Catholic sweeping generalizations about evanglicals hasn’t lessened.
Click to expand...
Many mainline Protestant communities also use grape juice, because “Jesus didn’t use wine.”
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Many mainline Protestant communities also use grape juice, because “Jesus didn’t use wine.”
Click to expand...
I highly doubt your characterization. The cults and some Baptist churches (those that strictly adhere to the SBC), are the only churches that come to mind for me, although I’d be open to seeing your evidence to the contrary. However, the SBC resolution on alcohol makes no mention about non-alcoholic wine in the Bible:

sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1156

I believe what Catholics are seeing is a) misunderstanding on the part of Protestant members (which is not absent from the Catholic church either) who defend this doctrine on this basis, b) fringe groups that just make radical claims to stir the pot (which is also not absent from the Catholic church), and c) leftover feelings that were passed on from American Prohibition, which, quite frankly, wasn’t all that long ago.
 
ckempston said:
I highly doubt your characterization. The cults and some Baptist churches (those that strictly adhere to the SBC), are the only churches that come to mind for me, although I’d be open to seeing your evidence to the contrary. However, the SBC resolution on alcohol makes no mention about non-alcoholic wine in the Bible:

sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1156

I believe what Catholics are seeing is a) misunderstanding on the part of Protestant members (which is not absent from the Catholic church either) who defend this doctrine on this basis, b) fringe groups that just make radical claims to stir the pot (which is also not absent from the Catholic church), and c) leftover feelings that were passed on from American Prohibition, which, quite frankly, wasn’t all that long ago.
Click to expand...
AMEN.

I am a convert to Catholicism and being born into and brought up in a Southern Baptist church gives me some perspective on this topic.

I would add to the previous post, that I agree with completely, that this should be a warning to anyone about painting yourself into the ‘dogma corner’. One of the things I find so frustrating with certain groups of believers is their propensity to sell their faith out for political gain and their need to push their belief on others to strengthen it.
 
As a home winemaker & someone that has done a LOT of study on the subject & it’s history, I gott say the whole idea of the grape juice thing is totally rediculas :yup: More often that not the natural yeast adhearing to the fruit would have started fermintation after crushing & exposing the juice.

How strong? Just like we have today … between 9 & 12.5% by vol. Today we can control it better because out science is more advanced. The process is not haphazard. To ensure grape juice & not have wine as a result, takes control & knowledge of the product that did not exist in Jesus’ day.
 
VociMike said:
The only Methodist church I was ever in used juice.
Click to expand...
I’m surprised to find this non-sequitur reasoning in an “apologetics” forum.

Because a church uses juice, it does not follow that this church believes that alcohol is inherently evil, or that the wine in the Bible was non-alcoholic. Lacking much knowledge of Methodist beliefs, I had to look this up, but it seems their reasons for not using wine are not what are suggested in this thread.

methodist.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=opentogod.content&cmid=142

Is it a point of pride that Catholics drink wine in church? Why attack this straw man? Maybe a slow day in Catholic apologetics land?
 
ckempston said:
I’m surprised to find this non-sequitur reasoning in an “apologetics” forum.
Click to expand...
Whoa there, sparky. It was an observation, an anecdote. It wasn’t “reasoning”.
Because a church uses juice, it does not follow that this church believes that alcohol is inherently evil, or that the wine in the Bible was non-alcoholic. Lacking much knowledge of Methodist beliefs, I had to look this up, but it seems their reasons for not using wine are not what are suggested in this thread.
Click to expand...
methodist.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=opentogod.content&cmid=142
Click to expand...
Is it a point of pride that Catholics drink wine in church? Why attack this straw man? Maybe a slow day in Catholic apologetics land?
Click to expand...
Did I, as the OP, ever bring up the “alchohol is inherently evil” line? No, I did not. So don’t accuse me of doing so. It seems that this is a hot-button issue with you, because your reaction is not called for by what was actually posted.

Now why a church that did believe the “wine” at the Last Supper was really wine, would still choose to use grape juice, is another interesting question. But it’s not the question I was invoking.
 
VociMike said:
Whoa there, sparky. It was an observation, an anecdote. It wasn’t “reasoning”.
Click to expand...
You did make such claims in your original statement. Your inclusion of Methodists could be taken in no other way, since that is the very topic of this thread. It’s called “context”:

One of the more preposterous claims of American Fundamentalism (and a good portion of Evangelicalism) is that the “wine” spoken of in the bible was really grape juice.
Did I, as the OP, ever bring up the “alchohol is inherently evil” line? No, I did not. So don’t accuse me of doing so. It seems that this is a hot-button issue with you, because your reaction is not called for by what was actually posted.
Click to expand...
This is the very position you are attacking, so yes, you did. You are (strawman) attacking groups that (so you say) hold that Biblical “wine” was not alcoholic. These supposed groups (or individuals) typically believe two things: alcohol is inherently evil and that the wine in the Bible was not actually alcoholic. It was a perfectly relevant and appropriate comment that I made.

It’s not that difficult to follow, and as far as it being a “hot button” issue for me, false accusations, strawman arguments, and sweeping generalizations are always hot button issues for me. Someone has to respond, otherwise, Catholics will just sit in here and stroke each others egos and continue preaching to the choir. I couldn’t care less that some people believe the wine in the Bible is non-alcoholic, although I believe they are wrong as you do.
 
I’d also like to add that your comment was in response to this comment by Br. Rich SFO:

Many mainline Protestant communities also use grape juice, because “Jesus didn’t use wine.”

You then wrote:

The only Methodist church I was ever in used juice.

What other way could anyone possibly take this than to be an accusation (or at the very least, an innuendo) on your part that Methodists also adhere to this incorrect belief?
 
In the evangelical churches I’ve attended, we used grape juice, but it had nothing to do with any notion that “wine” in the Bible actually means “grape juice.” It was borne out of a sensitivity toward those suffering and/or recovering from alcoholism.
 
ckempston said:
You did make such claims in your original statement. Your inclusion of Methodists could be taken in no other way, since that is the very topic of this thread. It’s called “context”:

One of the more preposterous claims of American Fundamentalism (and a good portion of Evangelicalism) is that the “wine” spoken of in the bible was really grape juice.

This is the very position you are attacking, so yes, you did. You are (strawman) attacking groups that (so you say) hold that Biblical “wine” was not alcoholic. These supposed groups (or individuals) typically believe two things: alcohol is inherently evil and that the wine in the Bible was not actually alcoholic. It was a perfectly relevant and appropriate comment that I made.

It’s not that difficult to follow, and as far as it being a “hot button” issue for me, false accusations, strawman arguments, and sweeping generalizations are always hot button issues for me. Someone has to respond, otherwise, Catholics will just sit in here and stroke each others egos and continue preaching to the choir. I couldn’t care less that some people believe the wine in the Bible is non-alcoholic, although I believe they are wrong as you do.
Click to expand...
Like I said, your reaction here is totally out of proportion with regard to what has actually been posted. And, as per my anecdote, I have no idea why that Methodist church did what it did, but since the subject of mainline Protestant churches came up, I threw it in. I now deeply wish I hadn’t. 🤷
 
ckempston said:
I’d also like to add that your comment was in response to this comment by Br. Rich SFO:

Many mainline Protestant communities also use grape juice, because “Jesus didn’t use wine.”

You then wrote:

The only Methodist church I was ever in used juice.

What other way could anyone possibly take this than to be an accusation (or at the very least, an innuendo) on your part that Methodists also adhere to this incorrect belief?
Click to expand...
“Many” does not equal “All”. Let me be very clear, I have no interest in pursuing this discussion with you, because your reaction is so out of line it bothers me. Clear enough?
 
djrakowski said:
In the evangelical churches I’ve attended, we used grape juice, but it had nothing to do with any notion that “wine” in the Bible actually means “grape juice.” It was borne out of a sensitivity toward those suffering and/or recovering from alcoholism.
Click to expand...
That does raise an interesting question. When Jesus said “do this” do Christians have the authority to “do something else instead”?
 
VociMike said:
That does raise an interesting question. When Jesus said “do this” do Christians have the authority to “do something else instead”?
Click to expand...
Mike, I think that’s the real question we should be asking them. Thanks for mentioning it! 👍
 
Could someone answer maybe a naive question about this? Grapes aren’t grown and harvested year-round. There was no refrigeration back then, no way to store grape juice so that it would keep from spoiling. Even our commercial grape juice today, with all its preservatives, spoils after a week or so in an opened bottle. Grape juice wouldn’t have kept very long after harvest. Wouldn’t the only way to preserve it be to allow it to ferment?
 
Welch’s Grape Juice was actually invented for the Methodist Church as an alternative to wine. It was thought at the time to be the world’s first “unfermented wine,” and Thomas Welch received a patent for it.

welchs.com/about-welchs/history
 
That being the case, it seems to me there would have been no possible way anyone could have been drinking grape juice year-round back then.
isn’t grape harvest in the fall? Passover is in the spring. The only thing Jesus could have been drinking during Passover was fermented wine. Am I right or wrong?
 
FickleFreckled said:
That being the case, it seems to me there would have been no possible way anyone could have been drinking grape juice year-round back then.
isn’t grape harvest in the fall? Passover is in the spring. The only thing Jesus could have been drinking during Passover was fermented wine. Am I right or wrong?
Click to expand...
Right - another factor is that grape juice can only be made from sweet grapes, which were developed by the Welch family through cross breeding of several different varieties of grapes until they finally got one that produced sweet juice that could be drunk raw.

Prior to that, you would not even have wanted to eat grapes, since they were very sour to taste - the only thing you could do with the grapes that existed at the time of Jesus was to make wine out of them. Sweet grapes did not exist, yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top